Clean way to name what a lot of us do ad hoc. The part I'd push on: judge-has-no-write-permission is the right default. But the harder failure is when the judge's narrow question is wrong itself. Bad fact sheet. A question that can't tell "unsupported" from "contradicted." Nothing downstream catches that except a human noticing the scan missed something obvious. Do you run any adversarial pass on the fact sheet and question wording themselves, or does that only get caught when a defect slips through like your stale index entry? We've hit exactly that in our own review gate: a reviewer confidently answering a badly-framed question, which is worse than a model lying about a good one.